[Leica] Used lenses

[Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>]

Several LUGs recently were looking for or supported to look
for mint, mint minus, or ex++ lenses. I'd highly recommend to 
stop that nonsens, except you are a collector. 

The main reason, why select Leica lenses is the glass. As long
as the glass is ok, there is no reason to favor a more expensive
version. Even small scratches, little splinthers at the front
lens, or minor "dirt" spots between lens elements do not influence 
the picture, except in extremely rare and unlucky situations.
These effects are less strong in longer focal lengths even.
Different, be cautious with the rear lens. She should be untouched.
Haze reduces contrast.

If you buy a used lens, run a slide flim thru your camera: Take 
pix of your most favorite motives, but don't forget to take pix under
adverse conditions also (e.g. sun directly into the lens, low light), 
which usually adds to reveal the lens's range and performance. 

Additionally to Ken's example of the "kicked thru Texas" M SA, I can
add another example: I have a 1.9/73 Hektor (with caps & hood), which
usually gets collector prices of USD 1.200+ in "used" (C) condition
(LPG, 1997). There are several splinthers at the back of the front 
element, in total about 10 to 15 percent of the area. Those defects 
do not influence the pix, even at f 1.9 as Marc J Small may confirm. 
The splinthers made, that I got the lens for USD 300. Besides, a 
collector offered USD 750 for her when he saw my test slides - right 
to the shop before I had paid the lens. To me, the comparable low price 
allowed to buy a 1.5/50 LTM Summarit (USD 300) additionally. The 
Summarit is mint minus this time, and came from a collector, whose 
heirs quarreled about the inheritance. Lucky me.

Alf